Admitting a Wrong Call Protects Authority Better Than Defending It
A wrong call hands a leader two costs. The first is the decision itself, the money and the lost time. The second is what people now think of your judgment. Most leaders try to limit the second cost by defending the first decision, and the evidence suggests that move often enlarges it.
Admitting a wrong call feels like giving up authority. The research on trust repair points the other way, with limits worth knowing before you act on it.
Why Smart Leaders Defend Decisions That Are Failing
The pull toward defense is well documented. In Barry Staw’s Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action, 240 business students in a role-play committed the most money to a losing option they had chosen themselves. Dustin Sleesman and colleagues later pooled 166 samples in Cleaning Up the Big Muddy: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Determinants of Escalation of Commitment, published in the Academy of Management Journal, to see what keeps decision makers committed to a failing course. Across 54 samples, personal responsibility for the original decision was linked to staying the course. Ego threat, meaning a threat to the decision maker’s reputation, was among the most powerful drivers, though it rested on only 8 samples. Public evaluation of a decision showed no significant overall effect.
None of this takes bad character, only a decision with your name on it. Defending the call can pass for loyalty to the team while protecting the leader’s image.
The cost to the team shows up in what people say. Ethan Burris reported in The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice that managers rated employees who challenged existing practices as worse performers and endorsed their ideas less. A follow-up by Nathanael Fast, Burris, and Caroline Bartel, Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice, found that managers who doubted their own ability to meet the role’s demands avoided employee input, and that ego defensiveness explained why. Both appeared in the Academy of Management Journal. A leader who defends a failing call may therefore teach a team that raising a problem has a price. That step is inference, not a tested result.
What Admitting a Wrong Call Tells People
People judge a failed decision on two questions. Was this leader capable, and was this leader honest? Peter Kim and colleagues tested how apology and denial perform against each one in Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. In two lab experiments with 200 and 444 student participants, a job candidate accused of a tax filing error either admitted it or denied it. When the charge was a lack of competence, apology outperformed denial on several trust measures. When the charge was dishonesty and nothing was proven, denial did better.
A wrong call is a competence question. The authors’ explanation is that people tend to treat one poor performance as a lapse rather than a verdict on ability, while a denial gives them no sign that anything will improve.
The finding isn’t a license to confess to everything. Responses that clashed with later evidence cost trust, and if the real problem is hidden information rather than poor judgment, the honesty question takes over. Neither response fully restored trust to where it started.
Staying quiet doesn’t avoid the choice. In Silence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of Reticence in Comparison to Apology and Denial for Repairing Integrity- and Competence-Based Trust Violations, in the same journal, Donald Ferrin and colleagues found in experiments with graduate students in the United States and undergraduates in Singapore that silence usually trailed the best response.
What a Credible Admission Contains
Credibility depends on whether people believe the admission, and the content matters. Roy Lewicki, Beth Polin, and Robert Lount tested six apology components (regret, explanation, responsibility, repentance, repair, and a request for forgiveness) in An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies, published in Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Apologies with more components were rated more effective, with acknowledging responsibility and offering repair weighing most and asking for forgiveness least. People rated written scenarios, so the study measures perceived effectiveness, not repaired trust. In practice, a credible admission names what was wrong, owns the judgment, and says what changes.
A 2024 study adds a global view and a caution. Claudia Coustas and Gavin Price surveyed 311 people who had experienced a leader’s wrongdoing, about half of them South African and the rest from more than 50 other nationalities. In Factors influencing followers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their leaders’ apologies, published in the SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, they reported that an apology’s content, promptness, and perceived fairness all tracked with how authentic followers found it and with the relationship afterward.
Prior relationship quality didn’t strengthen the link between a good apology and its perceived authenticity, so goodwill alone may not carry a thin admission. Relationship quality also fell on average after the wrongdoing and whatever apology followed.
Apple, the U.S. technology company, offers a documented example. On September 28, 2012, then chief executive Tim Cook published an open letter about the company’s new Maps app, a week after launch. The New Statesman reproduced it in Apple’s CEO Tim Cook apologises for shoddy Maps. Cook wrote that with the launch, “we fell short on this commitment.” The letter apologized for the frustration it caused customers, said Apple was working to fix it, and pointed users to rival map apps in the meantime. That is an admission with a plan attached. It is also one consumer product, and the record doesn’t show that the letter caused anything that followed.
How to Reverse Course Without Damaging the Team
Admitting a wrong call protects credibility best when the team is protected too. That starts with separating the call from the work. The people who carried out the plan did what you asked, so say so, and say plainly that the decision was yours.
Evidence on reversals themselves is mixed, and framing matters. In 15 studies with 5,552 participants, Tamar Kreps and colleagues found in Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous evolution? When leaders change their moral minds that leaders who reverse a moral stance are judged hypocritical and less effective, even by people who endorse the new view. A 2025 study of 1,213 participants by Jacob Miranda and colleagues, The Perks of Being a Flip-Flopper: Examining Evaluations of Politicians Who Change Their Position Due to Scientific Evidence, found that politicians who changed position because of strong evidence were judged more flip-floppy but also warmer and more competent. A business call is usually a pragmatic judgment, closer to the second case, and tying the change to new evidence appears to matter. Both studies used hypothetical leaders, not executives with real results at stake.
A team also needs to hear what changes and what stays. The 2024 survey counted a plan for what happens next as part of a credible apology, and a team needs the same thing in operating terms. Which work is still valid, which stops, and who owns the next step? Speed matters too. The same study linked promptness to authenticity, and each week of delay adds work on a foundation you already doubt.
The next call should go to fresh eyes. The escalation meta-analysis notes a remedy scholars have offered, moving the decision to continue or stop to someone other than the person who made the original call. It also cautions that putting the cost of other options in front of the decision maker may backfire when responsibility feels personal. Naming a reviewer with no stake in the original choice before the decision, not after the failure, is a practical way to apply that advice.
An organization’s decision culture shows in how it handles friction. Write down the assumptions behind a major commitment, and the evidence that would justify reconsidering it, before the commitment is made. Hold a premortem, and review both the outcome and the quality of the reasoning, since a good result doesn’t validate a weak process. These are practice recommendations, not research findings. They turn a later reversal into a check against criteria, not a verdict on one person.
Modeling matters too, and it works best before a failure. In How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus, also in the Academy of Management Journal, Bradley Owens and David Hekman studied 607 people in 161 teams across lab and field settings. When leaders behaved humbly, which included admitting mistakes and limitations, team members copied the behavior and teams performed better. The study measured humility broadly and didn’t test reversals, so applying it here is inference.
Where the Principle Stops Working
Law comes first. Legal advice varies by jurisdiction, but where an admission could create exposure, such as a regulated disclosure or an active dispute, counsel may advise silence. The authors of the silence study noted that this advice can serve the legal case while costing relationships and reputation, so the decision deserves both views before anyone speaks.
Culture matters too. The researchers behind the apology-versus-denial experiments noted that how trust repair works across cultures is still largely unstudied. The silence experiments produced similar results in the United States and Singapore, and the 2024 survey reached more than 50 nationalities, but that sample was self-selected and leaned heavily toward postgraduate degrees. The humility studies used Western samples only, and their authors report qualitative evidence that humility may help less under extreme time pressure. The principle may travel further than the practice, so adjust how you say it to local norms about face and public admission.
The evidence itself has a ceiling. Most of this work comes from lab experiments, which test short-run reactions, and one-time surveys, which show association. Neither can show what happens to a team’s trust over years.
Which decision on your desk would you reverse if a colleague had made it, and who could review it with no stake in the original choice? Those two answers show where to begin. Admitting a wrong call is the start of the repair, not all of it. The team still needs to know what happens next.
Build a Decision Culture That Can Change Its Mind
Reversing a decision cleanly is a skill an organization builds before it needs it. Aspirations Consulting Group works with executives and other leaders at the points where the pull to defend a plan is strongest, such as rapid growth, leadership transitions, and performance pressure. It helps them address the intersecting organizational challenges that surround those decisions, so a team can change direction without losing trust. Learn how its team supports leaders in these moments.
Keep Learning From the Research Behind Better Decisions
Request a complimentary subscription to ACG Strategic Insights™ for practical leadership, business, and finance analysis every weekday, read by more than 10 million executives and other leaders worldwide.
~ Jerry Justice
Living to Serve, Serving to Lead™
Comments